Islamic Finance Principles Assessment
Riba — Does $YOM involve interest?
$YOM's core mechanics show no interest-based lending or borrowing; revenue flows from fiat-paying game studios converted into token payments to node operators. The concern is not riba in the base protocol but the absence of clarity on treasury asset composition and third-party DeFi mentions. For Muslim investors, the base protocol itself appears free of interest, though peripheral activity warrants caution.
Assessment: Minor Riba
Score: 70/100
Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well $YOM avoids interest-based mechanisms.
Protocol revenue originates from game studios and platforms paying fiat for compute access, which is converted into $YOM to compensate node operators—a service-based, fee-for-use model rather than an interest-bearing loan structure. Treasury allocation (37.5%) and ecosystem funds (25-35%) are disclosed with vesting schedules, but the specific assets held in treasury (fiat, stablecoins, or yield-bearing instruments) are not detailed in available sources. Older documentation referencing passive income via third-party liquidity provision on Orca is explicitly DeFi activity outside the core protocol, not native yield, and should not be treated as characteristic of $YOM's own design.
Rewards to node operators are usage-based and variable, tied to actual session volume, demand, and fixed USD-denominated compute tiers rather than a promised fixed return—structurally resembling a service fee rather than interest. The staking-linked XP mechanism grants non-transferable reputation that improves workload priority and earnings, again contingent on real performance and network contribution rather than passive lending. This performance-based variability is the key feature distinguishing $YOM's reward structure from riba-like fixed-yield instruments, though the absence of detailed lock-up, slashing, or custodial terms leaves some structural ambiguity.
Gharar — How much uncertainty does $YOM involve?
$YOM carries a moderate uncertainty profile: strong team transparency and disclosed tokenomics reduce ambiguity, while the missing audit and partially documented staking mechanics increase it. The founders, funding history, and burn mechanics are verifiable and specific, which is reassuring. Overall, informational gharar here stems less from the business model and more from unverified security claims.
Assessment: Moderate Gharar (Material Uncertainty)
Score: 56.1/100
Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.
The team is fully named and traceable—Velzeboer, Pringle, Outlaw, Solanki, and Elout—with a 15+ person operations team across the Netherlands, US, and Spain, and a documented history from virtual production to cloud-gaming DePIN since 2021. Institutional backers (Outlier Ventures, Borderless Capital) and named advisors from Sony, PUBG, and Paradox Interactive add credibility. Tokenomics, vesting cliffs, and allocation percentages are disclosed. This level of identifiable, cross-referenced disclosure substantially reduces gharar relative to anonymous or pseudonymous projects common in the sector.
YOM's own blog asserts its contracts are "audited," but no named audit firm, report, or date specific to YOM's contracts appears in available sources; retrieved Halborn reports concern unrelated projects entirely. This means no verifiable third-party audit for YOM's own smart contracts can be established here. An unaudited protocol handling real payment flows and node rewards represents a genuine, nameable gharar concern, distinct from the team's otherwise strong transparency, and should weigh on any risk assessment until independent verification surfaces.
Maysir — Does $YOM involve gambling or speculation?
$YOM shows no gambling mechanics or chance-based payout design; rewards derive from measurable compute delivery and network usage, not randomised odds. Secondary-market price speculation exists, as with any tradable token, but this sits apart from the protocol's own function. The base design does not resemble maysir.
Assessment: Moderate Maysir (High Risk)
Score: 66.8/100
Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether $YOM is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.
$YOM's utility is concrete: game studios pay fiat for cloud-compute access, which converts into token payments compensating GPU node operators for real streaming services delivered to end users. This is a productive, service-rendering economic loop—compute for payment—rather than a zero-sum wager. The 5% session burn and fee-driven burns tie token scarcity directly to genuine usage rather than speculative issuance schedules, reinforcing that value accrual is linked to real demand for a tangible service rather than chance.
Weighed against this genuine utility, $YOM's circulating supply was only 19.8% at token generation, with a large gap between initial market cap ($12.4M) and fully diluted valuation (~$75M), creating conditions where secondary-market trading may be driven more by speculative anticipation of future unlocks than by present utility. This speculative trading behavior is a feature of open markets generally and does not stem from the protocol's own design, which remains utility-anchored; such third-party trading conduct should not be read as evidence the token itself is a gambling instrument.
The Full 27-Point Screening
1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Team Transparency | 82/100 | Team members are named with roles, verifiable LinkedIn/company profiles, and a public track record. |
| Fraud & Scam Risk | 68/100 | No fraud or scam allegations specific to YOM appear in these sources, but absence of evidence is not the same as a confirmed clean record. |
| Use Case Legitimacy | 82/100 | The project has a described live cloud-gaming product, patents pending, and reported first-year revenue, indicating genuine utility beyond hype. |
| Ethical Practices | 78/100 | The protocol's own design is cloud-gaming infrastructure with no described connection to a prohibited industry, though sources do not explicitly address ethics. |
Summary: YOM has a named, credentialed team with a multi-year track record and no fraud indicators found in these sources.
2. Project Operations (9 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Core Protocol Business | 82/100 | The base protocol is described consistently as decentralized cloud-gaming/compute infrastructure, a non-prohibited sector. |
| Transaction Fees | 78/100 | Fees are structured as a flat network fee plus a burn/revenue-share mechanism rather than an interest-like extraction. |
| Treasury Assets | 62/100 | Disclosed treasury allocations are in native $YOM tokens for operations and ecosystem growth; no interest-bearing holdings are mentioned, but composition beyond token allocation is not detailed. |
| Revenue Model | 82/100 | Revenue comes from fiat compute payments converted to the token, not from lending or interest. |
| Transparency | 60/100 | Extensive public documentation exists, but explicit confirmation of open-source smart contract code is not established in these sources. |
| Governance | 42/100 | Governance and privileged contract control rest with a Foundation and a small multisig with timelock, indicating meaningful centralisation despite disclosure. |
| Launch Fairness | 42/100 | Seed, private, and public rounds were priced at successively higher valuations, giving early investors a structural pricing advantage over later participants. |
| Token Distribution | 55/100 | Detailed allocation tables show a broad set of buckets including sizeable community/ecosystem pools alongside meaningful treasury, team, and investor shares. |
| Speculation/Utility Ratio | 62/100 | The design ties token flow to real usage (session payments, node rewards), but sources also show heavy speculative/airdrop-farming activity around the token, and the actual balance is not quantified. |
Summary: The base protocol is a decentralized cloud-gaming DePIN with usage-based fees, a fixed supply, and disclosed but foundation-centralised governance.
3. Financial Health (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Protocol Revenue | 82/100 | Revenue is generated from compute payments rather than interest-bearing instruments. |
| Financial Status | 52/100 | Market cap, FDV, and circulating supply figures are disclosed, but broader financial stability (runway, reserves) is not detailed. |
| Interest Assessment | 82/100 | Documentation describes settlement of compute payments, not lending or borrowing, at the protocol level. |
| Audit Quality | 25/100 | The project claims "audited contracts" on its own blog, but no named audit firm, report or date specific to YOM is verifiable in these sources. |
Summary: Revenue comes from compute payments rather than interest, but no verifiable named audit of YOM's own contracts was found in these sources.
4. Token Economics (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Token Purpose | 82/100 | The token is consistently described as functioning to pay for compute and reward operators, a clear utility role. |
| Governance Rights | N/A | No token-holder governance voting mechanism is described; protocol direction sits with a Foundation, which is a neutral design choice rather than an inherent Shariah concern. |
| Rewards Distribution | 82/100 | Node rewards are explicitly tied to sessions served and usage rather than a fixed payout. |
| Speculation Controls | 68/100 | A hard supply cap, no further minting, and usage-triggered burns are built-in mechanisms that reduce pure speculative dynamics. |
| Asset Backing | 60/100 | The token's value is tied to network usage and demand for compute rather than a reserve asset, inferred from the described economic loop. |
Summary: The token serves a clear utility role in paying for and rewarding network compute, with variable usage-based rewards and a hard supply cap.
5. Staking Mechanism (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Mechanism Type | 48/100 | Staking/delegation is mentioned (run a node, delegate, earn), but custody, exact lock-up terms, and mechanics are not fully detailed in these sources. |
| Islamic Contract Classification | 38/100 | The staking-for-XP mechanism resembles a performance/reputation reward rather than a lending arrangement, but no clear Islamic contract classification is given, leaving the structure unresolved. |
| Rewards Structure | 52/100 | Node rewards generally are usage-based and variable, but the specific staking-for-XP reward's link to real activity versus a fixed multiplier is not clearly documented. |
| Documentation | 52/100 | A documentation section on "Earn" exists, but detailed terms, risks, and slashing conditions for staking are not found in these sources. |
| Shariah Alignment | 45/100 | Key structural questions about the staking/reward mechanism's classification remain unaddressed in the available sources, leaving some uncertainty unresolved. |
Summary: A staking-like reputation mechanism exists for node operators, but its custody, lock-up, and Islamic contract classification are not clearly documented in these sources.
Overall Assessment: YOM presents as a genuine utility-driven DePIN project with a real team and product, though gaps remain in audit verification and staking/governance documentation that limit a fully confident compliance assessment.
Written by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global Energy
Reviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar